Search content
Sort by
Showing 10 of 10 results by lnoir
Re: [ANN][VOT]: VoteCoin - a new era of anonymous crypto democracy
Is there any plan to be listed in Binance like website says ?
Seems they're waiting to see what Zooko/ZCash does...
Mining has already begun 
FYI, please post in/follow this thread instead: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3352184.0
FYI, please post in/follow this thread instead: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3352184.0
Welcoming the community to a fresh new equihash mining pool
BitcoinZ - SnowGem - Zelcash - LitecoinZ - VoteCoin - Hush
On-page chat/support
You can speak to other miners (or to me) directly on the main page of the site. No hopping between apps/sites necessary if you need to send a message, do it right there on LamboMoon.
Alternatively, you can get in touch on Twitter and Discord.
Transparency
But how can LamboMoon be trusted to reduce the fee when the running costs are covered?
The stats for the pools payouts, earnings from fees and running costs are clearly laid out on the pool for everyone to see. All payments made to miners are exposed, with the quantity of coins clearly visible. Everyone can see whats happening on LamboMoon. THIS is transparency. LamboMoon is possibly the only pool (or one of the few pools) that is doing this.
See the earnings for yourself here: https://lambomoon.club/#earnings
Decreasing mining fee, increasing donation
The mining fee is currently at 5%! What!?
OK, settle down, let me explain. Running the pool is expensive, so the mining fee is used to contribute to the cost. As the revenue of the pool increases, the mining fee will decrease to 1%, with 50% of the fee being contributed to projects of the coins hosted on the pool.
Also, because the pool is still small, if you put your hash there you get a much larger portion of the block reward. And blocks are being found regularly! BTCBTCBTC
Learn more about the mining fee and donations here: https://lambomoon.club/fees-donations/
Priority usage
LamboMoon is open to all for now. But, eventually, once it reaches stability in terms of revenue/profit and hashing power, mining priority will be given to the most active and loyal users. This does two things:
- Prevents the pool growing too large and gaining too high a percentage of network hash on each coin
- Rewards miner loyalty with preferential treatment
Why another mining pool?
As long as PoW exists, and new PoW coins are launched, pools are a necessity. Our community has a handful of monolithic pools that miners flock to, inadvertently giving these pools >50% of the network hash with some coins, particularly newer ones. Centralised hashing power is BAD, so the more pools the merrier.
More features to come!
- High diff ports
- Information area
- Pool earnings
- Block notifications
- Easy config
- Miner loyalty stats
- Market analysis tool
- App release of Market analysis
- Additional algorithms (NeoScrypt, Lyra2...)
- Additional US Server
- Additional Asia Server
*Roadmap may change in accordance with the demands of the pool and the its miners.
Come mine with us!
BitcoinZ - SnowGem - Zelcash - LitecoinZ - VoteCoin - Hush
Welcoming the community to a fresh new equihash mining pool
BitcoinZ - SnowGem - Zelcash - LitecoinZ - VoteCoin - Hush
On-page chat/support
You can speak to other miners (or to me) directly on the main page of the site. No hopping between apps/sites necessary if you need to send a message, do it right there on LamboMoon.
Alternatively, you can get in touch on Twitter and Discord.
Transparency
But how can LamboMoon be trusted to reduce the fee when the running costs are covered?
The stats for the pools payouts, earnings from fees and running costs are clearly laid out on the pool for everyone to see. All payments made to miners are exposed, with the quantity of coins clearly visible. Everyone can see whats happening on LamboMoon. THIS is transparency. LamboMoon is possibly the only pool (or one of the few pools) that is doing this.
See the earnings for yourself here: https://lambomoon.club/#earnings
Decreasing mining fee, increasing donation
The mining fee is currently at 5%! What!?
OK, settle down, let me explain. Running the pool is expensive, so the mining fee is used to contribute to the cost. As the revenue of the pool increases, the mining fee will decrease to 1%, with 50% of the fee being contributed to projects of the coins hosted on the pool.
Also, because the pool is still small, if you put your hash there you get a much larger portion of the block reward. And blocks are being found regularly! BTCBTCBTC
Learn more about the mining fee and donations here: https://lambomoon.club/fees-donations/
Priority usage
LamboMoon is open to all for now. But, eventually, once it reaches stability in terms of revenue/profit and hashing power, mining priority given to the most active and loyal users. This does two things:
- Prevents the pool growing too large and gaining too high a percentage of network hash on each coin
- Rewards miner loyalty with preferential treatment
Why another mining pool?
As long as PoW exists, and new PoW coins are launched, pools are a necessity. Our community has a handful of monolithic pools that miners flock to, inadvertently giving these pools >50% of the network hash with some coins, particularly newer ones. Centralised hashing power is BAD, so the more pools the merrier.
Roadmap
- High diff ports
- Information area
- Pool earnings
- Block notifications
- Easy config
- Miner loyalty stats
- Market analysis tool
- App release of Market analysis
- Additional algorithms (NeoScrypt, Lyra2...)
- Additional US Server
- Additional Asia Server
BitcoinZ - SnowGem - Zelcash - LitecoinZ - VoteCoin - Hush
Re: What is your biggest frustration when it comes to investing in crypto?
There are many problems with crypto, and around many of the projects in the crypto space. I've experienced frustration with all the things already mentioned, from the numerous wallets (and tendency to force running a full node) to the sham coins and the pump/dump groups.
Something else is how decentralised pertinent info can be, particularly in community-driven projects. You'll find information that should all be in one place, scattered across the website(s), Discord, Github, Gitter, Medium, SteemIt... Makes life easier if project-related resources are consolidated. Let the source of the contributions be decentralised, sure, but give people a single place to go to access all that info.
Something else is how decentralised pertinent info can be, particularly in community-driven projects. You'll find information that should all be in one place, scattered across the website(s), Discord, Github, Gitter, Medium, SteemIt... Makes life easier if project-related resources are consolidated. Let the source of the contributions be decentralised, sure, but give people a single place to go to access all that info.
I have a few thousand XVG, and have been interested in Verge for some time. I share this so that you realise I'm not a troll. But neither am I a "fanboy", and I can't help but be disappointed about the way this situation has been handled. ocminer kindly shared concrete evidence that there was an issue but the attitude towards it (from what I can tell) was somewhat dismissive and/or nonchalant.
I'm a developer by trade, and understand that the likelihood that software is bug-free quickly diminishes as complexity increases. The problem for me isn't that there was a bug in the code that was exploitable we can be thankful that it has been brought to the attention of the team and will be fixed. The problem for me is that this thread and situation highlights some serious issues.
First, it indicates that the team isn't fully aware of what they're doing. This statement is not an attack, it's just based on the evidence:
why would we do that? we just made a quick simple update and most pools have already updated...
we are now working on a higher level of redundancy checking as well.
the attack only lasted 3 hours, and not all coins produced during that period were intercepted.
After the "quick simple update" (which actually appeared to be botched), it took for ocminer to point out their error:
yep.. we pushed a quick fix and most pools have already updated.. we're already working on a whole new block verification process.
we're kinda glad this happened and that it wasn't as bad as it could have been.
Hmm, you guys are aware that the "fix" you pushed actually IS a hardfork ? So your blockchain snapshot is not valid anymore, the wallet's won't sync up from scratch anymore and the current chain is simply not usable anymore with that new "fix" ?
Your change simply disagrees with the attackers blocks, the first block I see from the attacker was 2007365 - so the wallets will stop syncing there and simply not progress any further.
I remember your first forking dramas when trying to fork into Tor which failed 2 times IIRC.
You should immediately refrain from that "fix" and set a proper fork-height (at least 48h) and the chain up until the fork block MUST accept blocks with the old timestamps and blocks after that fork block then only with the new timestamp.
Maybe conversations have happened privately between Dogedarkdev and ocminer, but I would expect at least a "thanks" or some kind of acknowledgement of his contribution. Instead, the next comment from Dogedarkdev is:
The second problem seems to be one common to many projects: communication. There are a number of things the Verge team could have done which it doesn't seem they did, or if they did, didn't do soon enough.
Communication is vital if you want to maintain the confidence of your community in your product. As of this post, the last Tweet from @vergecurrency is from 17h ago stating the problem is fixed:
https://twitter.com/vergecurrency/status/981578693062610950
Obviously it is not. On top of that, the top tweet when looking at the responses is from a fake Verge account (@vergekscurrency). Now, I know from this thread that people have already been duped, and yes they should have done their due diligence, or just used common sense and not send money unless purchasing or donating. But still, a simple Tweet to warn people about it wouldn't hurt.
Now, all this said, I understand that if the team is small there might not be resources and there for time fulfil all of the above during a time of crisis (which we can consider this to be, seeing as the hack is resulting in a hard-fork). Even more reason to make the limited communication count. Reassure your community, let them know you're on top of it and taking potential threats seriously.
I've got plenty more to say about it, but I've got things to do and besides, I'm a nobody on here. It's just my two cents.
all cut and paste projects run the very real risk of a broken port, regardless of the parent codebase. when a cut and paste dev misses any single important thing, a "simple" change can easily lead to a broken chainI'm a developer by trade, and understand that the likelihood that software is bug-free quickly diminishes as complexity increases. The problem for me isn't that there was a bug in the code that was exploitable we can be thankful that it has been brought to the attention of the team and will be fixed. The problem for me is that this thread and situation highlights some serious issues.
First, it indicates that the team isn't fully aware of what they're doing. This statement is not an attack, it's just based on the evidence:
Wonder when they are going to hardfork it
why would we do that? we just made a quick simple update and most pools have already updated...
we are now working on a higher level of redundancy checking as well.
the attack only lasted 3 hours, and not all coins produced during that period were intercepted.
After the "quick simple update" (which actually appeared to be botched), it took for ocminer to point out their error:
nice a new version of the famed timewarp attack.. very interesting.
yep.. we pushed a quick fix and most pools have already updated.. we're already working on a whole new block verification process.
we're kinda glad this happened and that it wasn't as bad as it could have been.
Hmm, you guys are aware that the "fix" you pushed actually IS a hardfork ? So your blockchain snapshot is not valid anymore, the wallet's won't sync up from scratch anymore and the current chain is simply not usable anymore with that new "fix" ?
Your change simply disagrees with the attackers blocks, the first block I see from the attacker was 2007365 - so the wallets will stop syncing there and simply not progress any further.
I remember your first forking dramas when trying to fork into Tor which failed 2 times IIRC.
You should immediately refrain from that "fix" and set a proper fork-height (at least 48h) and the chain up until the fork block MUST accept blocks with the old timestamps and blocks after that fork block then only with the new timestamp.
Maybe conversations have happened privately between Dogedarkdev and ocminer, but I would expect at least a "thanks" or some kind of acknowledgement of his contribution. Instead, the next comment from Dogedarkdev is:
we are not doing a rollback and we are preparing a fork to patch this up.
The second problem seems to be one common to many projects: communication. There are a number of things the Verge team could have done which it doesn't seem they did, or if they did, didn't do soon enough.
- On first report, notify the community via the various channels (BitcoinTalk, Twitter, Telegram, Discord) that a potential problem has been reported and that it is being investigate (perhaps linking to a BitcoinTalk thread)
- Work closely with the person who reported the issue to confirm (or reject) its validity
- Notify the community (again) once the report is confirmed or rejected and explain what will happen next (if anything) and ETA
- Keep the community updated and thank them for patience and support
Communication is vital if you want to maintain the confidence of your community in your product. As of this post, the last Tweet from @vergecurrency is from 17h ago stating the problem is fixed:
https://twitter.com/vergecurrency/status/981578693062610950
Obviously it is not. On top of that, the top tweet when looking at the responses is from a fake Verge account (@vergekscurrency). Now, I know from this thread that people have already been duped, and yes they should have done their due diligence, or just used common sense and not send money unless purchasing or donating. But still, a simple Tweet to warn people about it wouldn't hurt.
Now, all this said, I understand that if the team is small there might not be resources and there for time fulfil all of the above during a time of crisis (which we can consider this to be, seeing as the hack is resulting in a hard-fork). Even more reason to make the limited communication count. Reassure your community, let them know you're on top of it and taking potential threats seriously.
I've got plenty more to say about it, but I've got things to do and besides, I'm a nobody on here. It's just my two cents.
to be fair, even projects with large active devteams still run into exploits/bugs, etc. the danger with cut and pasted coins is that the new team wont be able to properly fix things if any troubles are encountered.
I've had to salvage projects that had clearly been cobbled together from various snippets of (untested) code, so trust me, I've experienced the nightmarish nature of these cut & paste projects. And yes, projects with large teams can still "run into exploits/bugs", that's the nature of software development. As I said:
Quote
...the likelihood that software is bug-free quickly diminishes as complexity increases.
Or to put it more generally: no software is bug-free. At least, this is the attitude that developers should have. Assuming you're not lazy or reckless, thinking this way makes you more proactive in your approach to weeding out the bugs, using various software testing methodologies (e.g. unit-, vulnerability- and generative testing).
The evidence of inexperience and/or incompetence in the Verge dev team in this situation not to mention the downplaying of the significance of what's happening, and the lack of humility has obliterated my enthusiasm for the Verge project. I believe in the right to privacy and anonymity, but there are other coins that can provide these things. From what I've seen, the Verge team isn't fit to deliver a secure and reliable solution, so I'm bailing out.
Any faithful Verge fam wanna buy my XVG?
Looks like suprnova xvg pool is back online now. Will it remain up?
If that is the case, I don't think it will remain up for long. XVG has already been removed from the site: https://www.suprnova.cc
I have a few thousand XVG, and have been interested in Verge for some time. I share this so that you realise I'm not a troll. But neither am I a "fanboy", and I can't help but be disappointed about the way this situation has been handled. ocminer kindly shared concrete evidence that there was an issue but the attitude towards it (from what I can tell) was somewhat dismissive and/or nonchalant.
I'm a developer by trade, and understand that the likelihood that software is bug-free quickly diminishes as complexity increases. The problem for me isn't that there was a bug in the code that was exploitable we can be thankful that it has been brought to the attention of the team and will be fixed. The problem for me is that this thread and situation highlights some serious issues.
First, it indicates that the team isn't fully aware of what they're doing. This statement is not an attack, it's just based on the evidence:
why would we do that? we just made a quick simple update and most pools have already updated...
we are now working on a higher level of redundancy checking as well.
the attack only lasted 3 hours, and not all coins produced during that period were intercepted.
After the "quick simple update" (which actually appeared to be botched), it took for ocminer to point out their error:
yep.. we pushed a quick fix and most pools have already updated.. we're already working on a whole new block verification process.
we're kinda glad this happened and that it wasn't as bad as it could have been.
Hmm, you guys are aware that the "fix" you pushed actually IS a hardfork ? So your blockchain snapshot is not valid anymore, the wallet's won't sync up from scratch anymore and the current chain is simply not usable anymore with that new "fix" ?
Your change simply disagrees with the attackers blocks, the first block I see from the attacker was 2007365 - so the wallets will stop syncing there and simply not progress any further.
I remember your first forking dramas when trying to fork into Tor which failed 2 times IIRC.
You should immediately refrain from that "fix" and set a proper fork-height (at least 48h) and the chain up until the fork block MUST accept blocks with the old timestamps and blocks after that fork block then only with the new timestamp.
Maybe conversations have happened privately between Dogedarkdev and ocminer, but I would expect at least a "thanks" or some kind of acknowledgement of his contribution. Instead, the next comment from Dogedarkdev is:
The second problem seems to be one common to many projects: communication. There are a number of things the Verge team could have done which it doesn't seem they did, or if they did, didn't do soon enough.
Communication is vital if you want to maintain the confidence of your community in your product. As of this post, the last Tweet from @vergecurrency is from 17h ago stating the problem is fixed:
https://twitter.com/vergecurrency/status/981578693062610950
Obviously it is not. On top of that, the top tweet when looking at the responses is from a fake Verge account (@vergekscurrency). Now, I know from this thread that people have already been duped, and yes they should have done their due diligence, or just used common sense and not send money unless purchasing or donating. But still, a simple Tweet to warn people about it wouldn't hurt.
Now, all this said, I understand that if the team is small there might not be resources and there for time fulfil all of the above during a time of crisis (which we can consider this to be, seeing as the hack is resulting in a hard-fork). Even more reason to make the limited communication count. Reassure your community, let them know you're on top of it and taking potential threats seriously.
I've got plenty more to say about it, but I've got things to do and besides, I'm a nobody on here. It's just my two cents.
I'm a developer by trade, and understand that the likelihood that software is bug-free quickly diminishes as complexity increases. The problem for me isn't that there was a bug in the code that was exploitable we can be thankful that it has been brought to the attention of the team and will be fixed. The problem for me is that this thread and situation highlights some serious issues.
First, it indicates that the team isn't fully aware of what they're doing. This statement is not an attack, it's just based on the evidence:
Wonder when they are going to hardfork it
why would we do that? we just made a quick simple update and most pools have already updated...
we are now working on a higher level of redundancy checking as well.
the attack only lasted 3 hours, and not all coins produced during that period were intercepted.
After the "quick simple update" (which actually appeared to be botched), it took for ocminer to point out their error:
nice a new version of the famed timewarp attack.. very interesting.
yep.. we pushed a quick fix and most pools have already updated.. we're already working on a whole new block verification process.
we're kinda glad this happened and that it wasn't as bad as it could have been.
Hmm, you guys are aware that the "fix" you pushed actually IS a hardfork ? So your blockchain snapshot is not valid anymore, the wallet's won't sync up from scratch anymore and the current chain is simply not usable anymore with that new "fix" ?
Your change simply disagrees with the attackers blocks, the first block I see from the attacker was 2007365 - so the wallets will stop syncing there and simply not progress any further.
I remember your first forking dramas when trying to fork into Tor which failed 2 times IIRC.
You should immediately refrain from that "fix" and set a proper fork-height (at least 48h) and the chain up until the fork block MUST accept blocks with the old timestamps and blocks after that fork block then only with the new timestamp.
Maybe conversations have happened privately between Dogedarkdev and ocminer, but I would expect at least a "thanks" or some kind of acknowledgement of his contribution. Instead, the next comment from Dogedarkdev is:
we are not doing a rollback and we are preparing a fork to patch this up.
The second problem seems to be one common to many projects: communication. There are a number of things the Verge team could have done which it doesn't seem they did, or if they did, didn't do soon enough.
- On first report, notify the community via the various channels (BitcoinTalk, Twitter, Telegram, Discord) that a potential problem has been reported and that it is being investigate (perhaps linking to a BitcoinTalk thread)
- Work closely with the person who reported the issue to confirm (or reject) its validity
- Notify the community (again) once the report is confirmed or rejected and explain what will happen next (if anything) and ETA
- Keep the community updated and thank them for patience and support
Communication is vital if you want to maintain the confidence of your community in your product. As of this post, the last Tweet from @vergecurrency is from 17h ago stating the problem is fixed:
https://twitter.com/vergecurrency/status/981578693062610950
Obviously it is not. On top of that, the top tweet when looking at the responses is from a fake Verge account (@vergekscurrency). Now, I know from this thread that people have already been duped, and yes they should have done their due diligence, or just used common sense and not send money unless purchasing or donating. But still, a simple Tweet to warn people about it wouldn't hurt.
Now, all this said, I understand that if the team is small there might not be resources and there for time fulfil all of the above during a time of crisis (which we can consider this to be, seeing as the hack is resulting in a hard-fork). Even more reason to make the limited communication count. Reassure your community, let them know you're on top of it and taking potential threats seriously.
I've got plenty more to say about it, but I've got things to do and besides, I'm a nobody on here. It's just my two cents.